The film The Dinner (2017), directed by Oren Moverman, concludes with a complex and morally ambiguous resolution, where no character emerges unscathed. Paul Lohman ultimately confesses to the crime of vandalizing the ATM, initially committed by his son Michael and adopted nephew Rick, taking the blame to seemingly protect them, although the consequences of their actions remain unresolved and the family’s future uncertain.
The Weight of Choice: A Descent into Moral Ambiguity
The Dinner is a chilling exploration of parental responsibility, privilege, and the lengths to which individuals will go to protect their loved ones. The film meticulously builds tension throughout the evening, as brothers Paul and Stan Lohman, along with their wives Claire and Katelyn, grapple with a horrifying act committed by their teenage sons. The core dilemma hinges on whether to report their children to the authorities, knowing the act was particularly heinous: setting a homeless woman on fire in an abandoned ATM. The ending, however, isn’t a clear-cut victory for morality or justice.
Paul, plagued by mental instability and prone to erratic behavior, is arguably the most compelling character. Throughout the dinner, his narration reveals a deep-seated resentment toward his successful brother, Stan, a congressman with political aspirations. As the evening progresses, the moral compromises made to protect the boys become increasingly apparent.
The film’s conclusion leaves the audience to ponder the true cost of these choices. While Paul’s confession might appear to be an act of self-sacrifice, it’s equally plausible that it’s a manifestation of his mental illness, a desperate attempt to regain control in a situation spiraling out of his grasp. It shields the boys from immediate accountability, but the long-term psychological and social ramifications remain a dark, unaddressed question.
The Lingering Questions: Unpacking the Moral Landscape
The strength of The Dinner lies in its ability to provoke introspection and challenge viewers to confront their own moral compass. There’s no easy answer, no simple resolution that ties up all the loose ends. The ending is deliberately ambiguous, leaving a lingering sense of unease and forcing the audience to grapple with the complex ethical considerations raised by the film. The Lohman family is fractured, trust is broken, and the future remains uncertain. While the immediate threat of prosecution might be averted for Michael and Rick, the underlying issues of their behavior and the parents’ complicity remain unresolved.
Frequently Asked Questions about The Dinner‘s Ending
Here are some frequently asked questions to delve deeper into the nuances and implications of the film’s conclusion:
H3: Why did Paul confess to the crime instead of his son?
This is perhaps the most debated aspect of the ending. Paul’s motives are complex and open to interpretation. Several factors likely contributed to his decision:
- Protecting his son: This is the most obvious motivation. He loves Michael and doesn’t want him to face the consequences of his actions.
- Protecting his nephew: Despite the strain in the relationship, Paul may feel responsible for Rick as well.
- Guilt and responsibility: Paul likely feels a degree of guilt for his son’s behavior, perhaps believing he failed as a father.
- Mental instability: Paul’s mental illness significantly influences his actions. His confession could be a manifestation of his instability, a desperate attempt to control a situation that feels overwhelming. He could see himself as a martyr.
- Spite toward Stan: Undermining Stan’s political ambitions might be a subconscious or conscious motivation, fueled by long-standing resentment.
H3: What happens to Michael and Rick after Paul’s confession?
The film doesn’t explicitly show what happens to Michael and Rick. This is intentional, emphasizing the ambiguity of the situation. It’s highly likely they will continue living with the burden of their actions, knowing their father/uncle took the fall for them. The long-term psychological impact of this is significant. Their relationships with their parents are irrevocably altered. Society may eventually discover the truth, bringing future consequences.
H3: Does Stan ever reveal the truth about his son and nephew?
The film offers no indication that Stan will reveal the truth. His primary concern is maintaining his public image and protecting his political career. While he might grapple with his conscience, his ambition likely outweighs his desire for justice. This further highlights the film’s critique of power and privilege.
H3: What is the significance of the dinner setting?
The dinner setting is crucial. It creates a claustrophobic and intimate atmosphere, forcing the characters to confront their moral dilemmas in a confined space. The formality of the setting contrasts sharply with the horrifying nature of the crime they are discussing, highlighting the hypocrisy and the veneer of civility masking a deeper moral decay.
H3: How does the film explore the theme of parental responsibility?
The film relentlessly explores parental responsibility, questioning the extent to which parents are accountable for their children’s actions. Both Paul and Stan struggle with this dilemma, ultimately choosing to protect their sons, albeit through different means. The film challenges viewers to consider their own beliefs about the limits of parental loyalty and the consequences of enabling harmful behavior.
H3: What role does Claire play in the unfolding events?
Claire is a complex and often unsettling character. Initially, she appears to be the most morally grounded of the four. However, as the film progresses, she reveals a willingness to protect her son, even if it means compromising her own values. Her actions highlight the powerful instinct to protect one’s offspring, even when faced with unimaginable circumstances.
H3: How does the film critique the concept of privilege?
The Dinner is a scathing critique of privilege. Stan’s political power and wealth allow him to consider options that wouldn’t be available to someone less fortunate. Paul, despite his instability, benefits from his brother’s influence. The film demonstrates how privilege can distort moral judgment and create a system where the wealthy and powerful are held to different standards. The fact that the victims were homeless and marginalized further underscores this theme.
H3: Is Paul’s mental illness a justification for his actions?
Paul’s mental illness is a significant factor in his behavior, but it doesn’t excuse his choices. The film doesn’t offer a simplistic explanation or absolve him of responsibility. It presents a nuanced portrayal of mental illness, highlighting its impact on judgment and decision-making while still holding him accountable for his actions.
H3: What is the significance of the historical parallels Paul draws throughout the film?
Paul’s frequent historical references serve to highlight the cyclical nature of violence and the destructive consequences of unchecked power. By drawing parallels between current events and historical atrocities, he suggests that humanity is doomed to repeat its mistakes.
H3: Is there any redemption for the characters in The Dinner?
Redemption is a complex and elusive concept in The Dinner. While Paul’s confession could be interpreted as an act of self-sacrifice, it’s debatable whether it truly constitutes redemption. The other characters are even less likely to find redemption, as their actions are driven by self-preservation and a desire to maintain their privileged status. The film suggests that some wounds are too deep to heal and some choices have consequences that cannot be undone.
H3: How does The Dinner compare to the Herman Koch novel on which it is based?
While both the film and the novel share the same basic plot, there are some key differences in characterization and emphasis. The film tends to amplify the characters’ flaws and anxieties, creating a more claustrophobic and intense atmosphere. The novel delves deeper into the characters’ internal thoughts and motivations, offering a more nuanced exploration of their moral dilemmas. The ending in the novel is arguably even more ambiguous than in the film.
H3: What is the ultimate message of The Dinner?
The Dinner doesn’t offer easy answers or a simple moral lesson. Instead, it presents a complex and unsettling exploration of moral ambiguity, parental responsibility, and the corrosive effects of privilege. The film challenges viewers to confront their own values and to consider the lengths to which they would go to protect their loved ones, even when faced with unimaginable circumstances. The true cost of silence, the burdens of responsibility, and the long shadow of guilt are potent and lasting themes. The audience is left to grapple with the unsettling questions the film raises long after the credits roll.